Wikipedia:Teahouse

331dot, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Images in infobox showing death / suffering

While reviewing the Killing of George Floyd article I was momentarily struck by the fact we included an image at the top of perhaps the moment he died, was immediately dying, or already dead. While not graphic, it did kind of strike me as odd that maybe this is insensitive and for this article, and others that may be doing something similar, maybe a more neutral image should be selected or omitted entirely. It doesn't bother me personally, and at the same time I do wonder if the image will end up being burned into popular conscience like the Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém but when looking for other similar events (murder of, execution of, killing of) we either focus on a relatively benign image or do not include one (even if it was broadcast on live TV such as Execution of Saddam Hussein). To be clear, I am not suggesting a scrub of the image - just that perhaps it shouldn't be the top image and we should consider how we present images in the future with some consideration. Anyway, curious as to other peoples thoughts are. Koncorde (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an explicit source of information. We don't cover things just because it may cause PTSD. I think it would be doing a disservice if we are not showing the photo. See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer for the disclaimer. GeraldWL ✉ 15:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The image has also been shared globally, so there's no need for a cover-up anyway. GeraldWL ✉ 15:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There is not a question of a cover-up. I explicitly stated "I do wonder if the image will end up being burned into popular conscience". I do question how graphic we are inclined to be. Is there any threshold of sensitivity? Child sex abuse images under the Pedophilia article? Pictures of dead kids in the Columbine High School massacre? Koncorde (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde The proper place to bring this up would be Talk:Killing of George Floyd- where this has been discussed several times. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I am specifically not bringing it up there because I am curious as to the wider concept of such images. Koncorde (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As noted, we don't censor images because of the potential to cause distress or offense. There are ways to suppress the display of images for those that are concerned about such things. What you propose would mean that the image of the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would need to be moved or removed as it depicts hundreds of thousands of people being vaporized or maimed. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between "censor" and using a different lead image - bearing in mind we don't seem to follow a standard rule of depicting the most graphic image possible on each article, only on some of them suggesting some editorial censorship is already underway. Should we be actively including such pictures where they can be found? And also there is a clear difference between the dispassionate presentation of the atomic bomb, vs the relative intimacy of Floyds death. Koncorde (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: I think it's more about showing an image most widely associated with the topic, which, in this case, is that one. Coverage in sources routinely use that image. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I will abhor changing the lead image, as the lead image is very much the essence of the article's subjects. It makes the readers familiar and ready for what they're going to read below. GeraldWL ✉ 03:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

So, in that case why aren't all similar articles illustrated this way? It appears some articles are "censored" by presenting a more palatable picture? Is it the significance of the image? Is the image in and of itself notable, is that the factor? Koncorde (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, this takes us back to the top. There are no general rules, except some guiding principles that have already been pointed out and norms that can only be understood with experience. Each article depicts images that represent a consensus of the editors who have been editing and discussing the article. If you think an image on any given article should be updated (added, removed, reorganised), the place to bring that up is the talk page of that article, if you can identify a general problem and would like to propose a general solution that ought to be binding to the whole project, the village pump is the place for it. The image guidelines at MOS:IMAGES should have most of the answers you would want before you would proceed with either of those options. (P.S. We work with what we have; the best/most-relevant images may not be freely available for all topics. I would think the biggest reason for inconsistency between articles would simply be the availability.) Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not trying to change policy, I am just curious about the perspectives that lead to certain images being selected. And that's the interesting bit isn't it. That consensus aspect I mean. How do we get to the point where we do or don't show the most graphic imagery without being accused of censorship? Aside from the legality of showing certain images, what is the threshold? I mean, there are certainly images of decapitation available, but instead we have artistic depictions. Is that not some form of "censorship"? Is the defence of wikipedia as not being censored enough to cover presenting pretty much any photographs in articles. For instance autopsy photographs (per John F. Kennedy autopsy). Is there any argument against including such images in other articles where the "consensus" would be to say that such an image is not relevant? Is a lack of relevance to the persons life, or the events leading to death, a defence against being accused of censorship? Koncorde (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, it's hard to tell how much of it is rhetoric and which exactly is the question that needs answering. But like I said, read MOS:IMAGES and use common sense. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Offensive_images discusses the balance between censorship and offence (;tldr, any image that causes offence has to be relevant and almost essential to the understanding of the topic such that omission would lead to an incomplete education). Editors argue their preference for or against an image on a case by case basis with support from aforementioned guideline and WP:CONSENSUS emerges eventually (if it doesn't status quo prevails). Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not being rhetorical in any sense. I am asking for points of view because there does seem to be an internal inconsistency across articles. This is not so much about the MOS, but about what people (i.e. editors) think about when selecting what might be a controversial image. For instance when referencing the MOS; it pretty much just defers to editors. Editors say we don't censor but some articles appear to, at the very least, skirt the subject to show images that may be relevant in 1786, but are archaic representations (presumably because of a sensitivity in showing certain things) but then we seem content to go for impact on other articles (i.e. holocaust, atomic bomb etc) - is that political? Just gratuitous? Is it neutral? For instance why is it the Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém contains the exact moment the bullet is fired, but Execution of Saddam Hussein has a presentable portrait. Talk page discussion says "This issue has been SETTLED, there was a CONSENSUS to remove graphic images long ago." which seems to tie to more protracted discussions where interestingly they argued for the inclusion of the video his actual execution because of its relevance. Again, back to the beginning, I am not actually interested in changing policy or otherwise. Just curious about how people would interpret such "common sense"? This is not a challenge, I am genuinely curious because I have never really given it much thought in all my years editing individual articles. Koncorde (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, A different set/configuration of editors edits each of those articles, each of them uses and argues their personal editorial judgement based on their view of what's right and appropriate and their understanding of policy and guidelines, and the apparent local consensus at the time the issue was raised depending largely on which editors happened to participate ultimately directs the outcome, which explains the inconsistency among different articles. Consensus evolves and is subject to change as editors change. High profile articles may reflect broader consensus than others. Highly controversial articles may reflect which side is most persistent and vocal. And so on. Teahouse isn't really the place for gathering perspectives or meta-commentary about the nature of Wikipedia processes and their outcomes or the people editing it (whether something is political, gratuitous or whatever, falls into that category); almost no page on Wikipedia is ( except user talk pages, with some limitations). All an individual editor needs to do is choose what they think is right, and try and see if they can get others to agree. Based on your personal judgement and your understanding of the guidelines, you either think these images should be removed in which case you'll have to try and convince others at the talk pages of Van Lem and Kennedy articles (and the Holocaust and Atomic bomb articles), or you think they need to be included in which case you'll have to ask at the Saddam Hussein article that the consensuses there be revisited. The reason there are no clear lines is because there are no universally correct answers. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Review Draft Article

Hi Robert McClenon! Thank you for reviewing the Draft:JioTV and highlighting the concern. I would like to explain this "This draft does not show how this division of Jio Platforms is sufficiently notable to need a separate article. " Jio Platforms has many divisions and JioTV is one of those. It's a LIVE TV application that is completely different from its other applications such as JioMeet (its a video calling app) or JioSaavn (it's an online music app only). Also, I have added more independent sources that are covering JioTV. Please have a look.

Since Robert has reviewed my article that's why I tagged him here. In general, I would appreciate help from any Wikipedia editors to improve this Draft:JioTV Ritzz07 (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question for us? Giraffer (munch) 11:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Giraffer This draft Draft:JioTV has been declined because of notability concerns. So I am seeking help regarding the same. --Ritzz07 (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Ritzz07 - What do you want help or advice about? I wrote that the division, JioTV, does not appear to be notable independent of its parent, Jio Platforms. You can expand the draft and resubmit it with an explanation as to how the division is independently notable. Or you can make an edit request to expand the article on the parent company. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I need advice where exactly I need to share an explanation of changes I make. Here in this thread or will I get an option to write an explanation at the time of resubmission request. Also, could you please highlight which section ( or content) you feel does not appear to be independent. Any content that doesn't have a sufficient reference link. It will help me rework on this article. Thank You Ritzz07 (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Ritzz07 - First, is JioTV a division of Jio Platforms? If so, JioTV is already discussed in the article on Jio Platforms. Second, it appears that you are asking me to rewrite the draft for you in order to put it into article space. No. I do not plan to rewrite the draft for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon JioTV, is a division of Jio Platforms this has been explained in the beginning before even writing the draft. See Talk:Jio_Platforms . Second, I don't want you to write a draft but since you have raised this concern, I just want you to highlight that content that you feel is not independent. Just search for JioTV in google news. I believe that's how Wikipedia works. The external world should talk about the subject of the article. I have written this draft based on the reference available. Any content which is not supported by the reference, I'll take that content part down immediately. Thank You Ritzz07 (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Geograph / Commons

Hi, I'm sure someone has given me advice on this before but I've forgotten how to do it properly. I want to use this image, which is on geograph.co.uk and has a CC2.0 sharealike licence - what's the best way to get it onto commons? (The upload wizard doesn't give the option to select 2.0, only 2.5, 3.0 etc.). Thanks in advance GirthSummit _(blether) 15:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The stuff in the green box at the top of this Commons page has advice about transferring Geograph images to Commons. Deor (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Sorry, forgot to ping. Deor (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Deor, hi - I think it was probably you who gave me advice on this last time I tried to do it. I'm afraid I'm still perplexed - Magnus' tool doesn't seem to be doing anything (I click run and nothing happens), and the 'basic upload' option doesn't give me a CC2.0 option - what to do? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Deor I think I cracked it, I did it manually, following the format of another file. Hope I haven't screwed it up :) Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 10:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Well done! For some reason, geograph2commons fails in that way on about 5% of pictures from Geograph. I've never managed to work out why. I've made one small change the the file, to change its name from c:File:Geograph-5942774-by-Jennifer-Petrie.jpg to c:File:Memoral to the Dunbar Soldiers taken prisoner at the Battle of Dunbar in 1650 (Geograph 5942774 by Jennifer Petrie).jpg. I did this because the original name didn't describe what's in the picture. It looks like the instructions on Geograph for transferring pictures don't work if you have the ImprovedUploadForm gadget enabled, as new Commons users do (but I didn't until recently). I'll see if I can find a way to fix this. --bjh21 (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Bjh21, thanks - I see you changed the file name at Battle of Dunbar (1650) too - very thorough, much appreciated! Did I get the coordinates right do you think? I did all that manually, copying the formatting from another image, hope it's how it's meant to be. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: We filemovers on Commons have a tool that automatically tries to update pages on other projects when we rename files. This is how I have edits on Wikipedias whose language I've not even heard of. I think your co-ordinates are pretty close to right, but that suggests you may not have spotted this page linked from the word "reuse" below the picture. At the bottom it has wiki source text suitable for pasting into a file description on Commons, or into the basic version of c:Special:Upload. In any case, since the co-ordinates are properly marked source:geograph, my bot will fix them at the weekend if it thinks they can be improved. --bjh21 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Bjh21, sounds like it's all good - thanks for the explanation, I'll know where to come next time I have difficulties! GirthSummit _(blether) 21:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Did Charles Porion die in 1868 or in 1908?

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place by the way, haven't exactly been here long.

There is conflicting information about this, even between language editions on Wikipedia. French and Spanish versions claim the latter date, whereas English claims the former. There is a source on the corresponding English article, but I don't have the language know-how and source evaluation skills to check whatever sources the Spanish and French have for the date and which one is the most authoritative. --85.76.101.85 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Museo del Prado (should be authoritative) says "after 1868".[1] The French article doesn't seem to have any references for his death date. These two books also say after 1868.[2][3] Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that cleared up the matter significantly. I edited the article accordingly. --85.76.101.85 (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Evidence for post 1868: He was still painting in 1876, he received the Legion of Honour in 1884. Christies, which appears to be the source of the current date, seems to be misled. The 1868 date seems linked only to his time at the Salon. I am not sure they are an authoritative source for this information. An equivalent French auction house says 1908[4]. This book attributes it to 1908, and is referring to art created between 1873 and '79[5]. Anyway, would likely need someone with access to one of those books. Koncorde (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The Musee d'Orsay book is citing an [[École du Louvre] thesis written in 2003 which apparently concluded he died in 1908.[6] If Musee d'Orsay think that's correct, I think we should go with that. It postdates a lot of other references; perhaps new research has been done. I'll edit the article with a note about this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1 and Koncorde: A New York Times article dated 1906 about one of his paintings says he was already dead then. The Legion of Honour was awarded in 1884. So, the citable range seems to be 1884–1906, assuming the LoH was not awarded posthumously. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Alan, a third date to look at! Koncorde (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Review

So I have re-submitted my draft, does it usually take this long for the draft to get reviewed since the first time I submitted my draft it only took a day for it to get reviewed. Thank you. EuniceR29 (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy Draft:Universiti Teknologi MARA Sarawak. Ther review process is not a queue. Reviewers look at the list and select what they want to review next. Can be days, but can be as long as months. You can continue to work on the draft while you wait. David notMD (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the reply.  EuniceR29 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@EuniceR29: Many of the references are just bare URLs, which you should improve while you wait. See WP:ERB for the correct way to cite references. Note also that refs go after punctuation, not before it, unless it's necessary to distinguish that the ref applies just to the last word and not the whole sentence or clause. Please also see MOS:CURLY. I've corrected these issues in the draft at Special:Diff/974982328. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for correcting the draft. So now I just need to edit the references?  EuniceR29 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Advice from Teahouse hosts does not necessarily mean that a reviewer will approve the draft. The groups of volunteers (hosts and reviewers) are not connected. David notMD (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

How do you become a wiki controller

 Fat boi 2.9 (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Fat boi 2.9. You added this question and then you seem to have tried to remove it but created some formatting problems instead; so, I re-added your question. I'm not sure what you mean by wiki controller. Do you mean Wikipedia administrator? If that's the case, you can find out some more about the requirements for becoming an administrator in Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about Sample Page and adding photos

Hi... I'm new here.. nice to be here. Might I ask when we are editing in Sample Page & we publish, does this then is public,.. or does it first have to be reviewed. Also I can't see where to add photos, probably on a different edit engine. ? Protea1111 (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Protea1111. By Sample Page, you seem to be referring to User:Protea1111/Sample page, and that's what Wikipedia refers to as a userspace draft for a potential Wikipedia:Article. All Wikipedia pages are public in the sense that any one can see them, but WP:ARTICLE and WP:DRAFTS are quite different. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for some general information about the kinds of articles Wikipedia tends to accept. Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners are two other pages many new editors trying to create an article for the first time seem to find hjelpfu. You might also want to take a look at this how-to page created by a Wikipedia administrator named Ian.thomson since it contains lots of helpful suggestions as well. I also recommend that you take the Wikipedia:Adventure because you'll learn about Wikipedia editing while actually making edits to existing articles.

Drafts can be submitted to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review, but I wouldn't suggest doing so now because your draft is almost certain to be declined. Submitting a draft for review is not required, but newish editors are encouraged to do so because it will give them a chance to receive feedback from other more experienced editors. Writing a proper Wikipedia article is pretty hard because there's lots of policies and guidelines that need to be met. Many first time editors immediately try to create article, only to see their work fairly quickly deleted for not be suitable for the article mainspace. This can be a bit discouraging when it happens which is why working on a draft and submitting it for review is suggested for editor who have yet to create many articles.

As for adding images to article, it can be a bit tricky at first, particularly when it comes to copyrights, etc., but it's not too hard to get the hang of. However, I would suggest that you first create a viable article and then worry about uploading images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Help with a problematic string of persistent mass removal unsupported by Wikipedia standards done by a threatening editor who refuses to discuss and claims they are absolutely correct?

Serial Number 54129 (who I do not want to ping or have anybody here ping based on threatening comments made towards me, including a request to block me after mistakenly reporting this situation to Arbcom) has repeatedly removed mass amounts of content on List of My Hero Academia characters claiming the info to be unverifiable and original research, despite the content explicitly being stated by the material, and that statement being backed up by multiple other editors on the article talk page, which SN has not commented on since the beginning of the month. I recently made a DRN thread that was recently closed due to me and SN going into an uncivil back-and-forth exchange that again resulted in SN refusing to discuss after claiming that they were absolutely right and that I had no idea what I was talking about. However, I based on patterns shown by SN, I know that they will be back to removing the same content without discussion and ignoring the article talk page in a few weeks, and I want to know if there is anything to prevent that. I’m worried that they will end up casting more aspersions on me about “bulshitting admins” or “crufting”, and I’m scared that I’ll be wrongfully blocked or have the page wrongfully fully protected based on an overzealous and threatening editor removing content in a way that does is not supported by Wikipedia standards. Do I just revert their edits every time they do the same mass removal in a few weeks? I know ANI and DRN are not the right places to report this, as ANI directed me to the article talk page (where Serial Number refused to discuss) and DRN directed me to ANI (when I had already tried ANI and it boomeranged). I’m sorry if this isn’t the right place either, but I don’t want to have to every few weeks deal with constantly reverting mass removal unsupported by Wikipedia standards from somebody who would rather threaten me and claim they are right than discuss on the article talk page, I’m scared, and I have no idea how to handle this situation. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging GorrillaWarfare and DESiegel since both are admins who have previously been involved in trying to sort this out.

@Unnamed anon: You don't need to be scared, but you might want to take a step back for a bit and let things cool down. My suggestion to you would be to continue discussing things on the article talk and continue working for a consensus in favor of the edit you want to make. No matter how right you know you are, reverting each other like this is going to be seen as edit warring and the two of you are likely going to end up being blocked. You might also want to consider self-reverting your last edit and propose that the change be made on the article's talk page. If you're able to estblish a consensus for the addtion, it will be added regardless of whether the other editor likes it, and they will be expected to honor the consensus or establish a new one in its place. If they choose to not discuss things or take a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, then it will only reflect poorly on them. You're both close to WP:3RR right now and continuing on in this manner will almost certainly lead to both of you being blocked.

Finally, I think your understanding of WP:BRD is a little off. The BOLD edit was when you added the content the first time, not when the other editor reverted you. At that point, it probably would've been better to bring things to the article talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The main issue is that multiple other editors have agreed that the mass removal was inappropriate, and even afterwards, the other editor still removed the content, claiming that the material wasn’t verifiable when the anime and manga are both considered verifiable sources, and proceeding to tell me that I have no idea what I was talking about on the now-closed DRN thread. Their refusal to discuss on the article talk page keeps leading to them still reverting weeks later and giving me a threatening remark. It’s not just the edit warring or the refusal to discuss I’m afraid of, it’s also the threatening attitude. And how many editors does it take for a consensus, because I’ve been backed up by at least two other editors. Unnamed anon (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A "threatening attitude" can indicate a behavioral problem and that would be better off discussed at WP:ANI. If it really bothers you and you're feeling WP:HARASSed, then that would be the best place to assistance. Before you go to ANI, however, you should look at WP:AOHA and WP:BOOMERANG because your behavior will be examined as well and you will be expected to provide specific examples of the other editor's behavior. There are very few Wikipedia saints amd pretty much everyone who edits alot gets frustrated at some point in time; so, if someone points out thngs that you could've done better, acknowledge their concerns and explain that you will try to do so. Heated discussions can be unpleasent for sure, but it's repeated behavior that is considered more problematic and likely to draw a stronger response.

There's no set number or editors required to establish a consensus, but generally the more the merrier. However, a local consensus cannot supercede a community-wide policy or guideline; so, a thousand editors saying it's OK on an article talk page to add a BLP violation to an article is not going to make it OK to add a BLP violation to the article. At the same time, a single editor claiming that certain content is a BLP violation when a thousand editors are saying it isn't is also just as unlikely to carry the day. If the other editor chooses not to participate in article talk page discussion, then you cannot make them do so; the other editor, however, cannot stop you and others from discussing things and reaching a consensus. Maybe trying to get others familiar with the subject matter involved in the discussion would be a good thing. Scroll up to the top of the article's talk page and see what WikiProject's it's scope falls under and then add {{Please see}} templates to the projects' talk pages. Since you dispute seems to involve and interpretation of WP:OR, it might also be a good idea to add a "Please see" template to WP:ORN as well. You might want to even consider a WP:RFC if you feel wider community input is necessary to resolve this. If other people are getting involved and they support the changes you want to make, then the other editor will have to reconsider their position or risk being sanctioned by the community. At the same time, if it turns out the consensus favors the other editor's position, then you will then have to accept that and move on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Transclude 2 or more tables from 1 article to another.

How would one transclude two or more "Series overview" tables from one article to another? I've used the onlyinclude /onlyinclude coding for both. But when I transclude the first table, the table appears with extra table coding below it. The second table simply won't appear (it still references the first table). How to I single each table out so that each can be viewed as planned? Do I have to name the "include" coding for each somehow? Are there samples I could be directed to? CYAce01 (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@CYAce01: Yup, if I understand correctly. See WP:SELTRANS. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 MaySundAnd (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1:That was exactly what I was looking for. Worked great. Thank you! CYAce01 (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

misrepresentation and biased and defaming editors especially to particular group of people doing racism

hey anyone who is reading this message i want to draw your attention on the two newly joined editors on wikipedia doing their propganda and defamotry work on the single article pageRajput ,the both editors named User:Heba Aisha and User:LukeEmily are from same team doing vandalism and spreading misinformation about a single article of an community group Rajput . both editors has done heavily edits on same page you can checklast 250 edit history last 250 edit history what they both have done till now from past month,they are adding the new references from propandas writers or paid writers just to malign the image of community . they are representing the references in such a way to spread the misinformation on page . both editors are far from neutrility and dedicating the entire time to just this single pageRajput . check the talk pages of both editors for more info ,you will see their propganda work and their contribution on this single page ,they also revert the other editors edits and they added a alot of references which can't be trusted from view of neurtility or good source ,they are also adding refernces in such a way that it looks genuine from first perspective but when you dig in deeper you will understand their racism toward a group of people . anyone who is reading this please must check the page history and both editors works and their join dates on wiki and what they are doing since day 1 to till now especially on a single page . wikipedia is a open source platform for betterment of society and providing free information to worldwide users ,few elements like these guys are maligning the image of the wikipedia platform. Loneltrussia (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• on Rajput talk page discussion is going on you can put ur views there.Also for my contributions see my profile.Thank u very much.Heba Aisha (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is being discussed at WP:AN/EW; duplicating discussions is not helpful. You are welcome to add to the discussion there. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

PDF: delete and as valid reference

 MaySundAnd (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

How can I delete this PDF-file, and does a PDF-file without a link count as a valid ref.?

Want to delete this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CV_template.pdf?markasread=25687252&markasreadwiki=commonswiki

- May — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaySundAnd (talk • contribs) 08:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons:File:CV_template.pdf is hosted at Wikimedia Commons. As you view it there, you should see the option "Nominate for deletion" (or, if you are viewing it in Norwegian, something similar in Norwegian). Nominate it for deletion there, of course with a valid deletion rationale. It's a Wikimedia Commons matter, not a Wikipedia matter. If you want to delete it and also want to use it as a reference, then one of us doesn't understand something important. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Potential vandalism/wrong citation

Hi everyone I recently came across a page which https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda which misquotes a source to provide a potentially vandal/non-neutral view of the practice in general. Refer to line 2 of article of citation 3 which mentions that the practice is "quackery". Since there is protection applied to the article, I was wondering if any experienced editors could review this issue.

Thanks! 117.97.242.222 (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please make a specific request/recommendation, and post it in Talk:Ayurveda. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Stated in the source "acquaint doctors regarding specific provisions and orders barring quackery by unqualified people." medicine is mentioned "4 lakh belong to practitioners of Indian Medicine (Ayurvedic, Sidha, Tibb and Unani)." The claim is correct. GeraldWL ✉ 08:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

When do copyvios require revision deletion, and how do you go about requesting them?

I recently encountered this edit, which appeared to be a copyvio - [7]. I reverted it and notified the editor, but since this is my first time dealing with copyvios, I don't know if there was anything else I needed to do. WP:CV101 says that "If appropriate request revision deletion of the reverted edits" but I wasn't sure what the criteria for rev deletion are or where to place the request template? Additionally, should I have placed Template:Cclean on the article's talk page? Thanks, Darth Coracle (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Darth Coracle: basically, to request the removal, you want to add {{copyvio-revdel}} to the page. I strongely recommend that you use User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel for this, as this allows you to select the revisions from the history page, which makes things easier than manually searching for the version ids. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah thanks; good to know. Darth Coracle (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

How to submit an article in Spanish wikipedia once I have it ready.

Hi Everyone! I have recently been declined an article in the English wikipedia as it was in Spanish, they referred me to the Spanish wikipedia site, where I included the article I'd like to submit for review, but I can't seem to find the option of submit. Please advise how to proceed.

Please see below: "Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (August 25)[editar código] AFC-Logo Decline.svgYour recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by NotTheFakeJTP was: The submission appears to be written in Spanish. This is the English Language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English Language. Please provide a high-quality English Language translation of your submission. Otherwise, you may write it in the Spanish Wikipedia. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:EstudioMatildeMarin/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:EstudioMatildeMarin/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit. If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)" EstudioMatildeMarin (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

EstudioMatildeMarin, sorry to have to do this to you again, but Spanish and English Wikipedias are two entirely different and independent projects. How things work there, only those who edit there could tell you. It is possible but unlikely that someone who edits both the Spanish Wikipedia and this one will see this post before it is archived. You could look for a help desk at the Spanish Wikipedia itself, es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual looks like one to me but I can't read Spanish very well. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Browser for mobile

Dear fellow Wikipedians, What are the browsers that are supported for editing in mobile ? For laptop / desktop, Chrome is supported, but not for mobiie. Please help..... Cheers.... Anupam Dutta (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC) Anupam Dutta (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Anupamdutta73, I am not entirely sure what you mean. I use Wikipedia on Chrome in my android mobile phone all the time, though I don't make many mobile edits. Could you be more specific as to the nature of the problem you are having? Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Anupamdutta73, I don't know if this will help, but I use the "official" Wikipedia app for Android. This allows you to edit an article in much the same way as you can when accessing Wikipedia via a browser. There is no equivalent of the "Edit source" tab at the top of the page, but each section within the article has a pencil icon next to which serves the same purpose. I don't think I would be comfortable doing any serious editing on a mobile screen with a small touch keypad, but it can be done. Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool and Mike Marchmont During the lockdown period, I didn't have access to my laptop.. I had to do it all on my mobile... Now every time I edit, I am reminded that I am not using a recognised browser.. so now,. looking for that elusive offical browser... By the way, my laptop is yet to have Bengali font.... So hope, you have got a hang of my problem (though not serious , but want peace of mind).... Cheers...... Anupam Dutta (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Anupamdutta73, can yo be more specific by giving us the full message that it is showing you ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

TheDJ When I click on "edit" button , the following notice pops up "You are using a browser which is not officially supported by this editor." - Anupam Dutta (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have just tried doing an edit using Firefox on my Android device. When I click the "Edit" button, I am taken to the usual editing page. I am then able to make an edit and publish it in the usual way. So your problem is probably specific to your browser or possibly your Android version. Have you tried using a different browser and/or a different device? Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Anupamdutta73, This is the Visual Editor on mobile reporting an unsupported browser. That means Chrome older than version 19 or a completely unknown browser. What browser and version are you using ? This internet page should show you the full browser information, maybe we can help if we know that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear TheDJ,The result of your link - "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 9; vivo 1904) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/85.0.4183.78 Mobile Safari/537.36". Hope you can help me... Cheers... Anupam Dutta (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Anupamdutta73, this indicates that you are using the Vivo browser, a device specific browser used by the Chinese brand Vivo. It's reviews include gems like: "this browser is not more than a heap of garbage". May i suggest Chrome. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Help for blocking

Hey I'm a newcomer to wiki, How to block some Vandal user from editing that article ?? Anyone help please. Abhiraam.chyren (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Abhiraam.chyren

Moved from WT:Twinkle. SD0001 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Abhiraam.chyren, is this about Sushant Singh Rajput? WP:AIV is the place to report vandals. However, there may be other steps you need to consider before reporting someone. So, it would help to know more about the particular editor or article you want to address. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

leave me alone

how do I get you off of my computer. When I open it, it has a picture from you. It is irritating. Get off of my computer!!!!!!! 2601:280:4780:240:1D4F:1157:152B:CEC6 (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Your question makes no sense, I'm afraid. As this is a forum for people wanting help editing Wikipedia, and not for setting up their own computer, I'm not sure we could help you anyway. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing non-functioning references

Hi. I'm new at this. I'm trying to add references to a page that doesn't have enough references. Harrowsmith Country Life Unfortunately the three existing references don't seem to work. There is no reference list and clicking on the in-line reference numbers doesn't pop up any information. I don't know how to fix that and am reluctant to add new references in the same style because then they won't work either. I read that I'm not supposed to mix reference styles, so I'd like to fix the existing references before adding new ones. Kermitchemist (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Kermitchemist. I have just added an (empty) References section for you. It will ony get populated once you've added inline citations. See Help:Referencing for beginners to get you started (or this guide I produced on the same subject). Let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've added one reference and it populated the reference list, but the three existing references still don't work. Any advice on how to get them to work?

See what Nick mentioned - Referencing for beginners. What you added was content to External links, not references. Refs follow the text being referenced - Wikipedia automatically numbers them and shows the ref content under References. David notMD (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks but those original three references weren't added by me. I don't know who added them or what they are referencing. Not sure how to figure that out from the limited information that they give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kermitchemist (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A big problem with those pre-existing refs is that they go to Harrowsmith Country Life. What is needed throughout the article is referencing to articles that were written ABOUT HCL, not BY HCL. David notMD (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

HOW DO I CREATE AND ARTICLE

Please, I would like to know how to create an article for some artist that i am assisting. – Nkechi36 (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you cannot write it unless you disclose something. But it doesn’t mean you have to disclose your personal information. This and this gives more information. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 14:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nkechi36, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please be aware that creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new users to spend some months working on existing articles and learningh how Wikipedia works before they try it. Also, if you are assisting the artist, that means that you have a conflict of interest, and that makes it even harder, because it is difficult to get the required degree of neutrality. Do remember that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that the artist says or wants to say about themselves or that their friends or associates says about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the artist, and who have not been prompted or given information by the artist, have chosen to publish about them in reliable sources. If you can find several such independent published sources, then, after declaring your COI on your user page, you can start creating a draft article using the articles for creation process: remember that you should not say what you think or know about the artist, but only what your independent sources say. If you cannot find at least three such sources (and remember that anything based on an interview with the artist, or anything from an associate of the artist, doesn't count) then the artist does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you should give up the idea.

In any case, as the previous answer says, it's worth reading your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hot House Music Schools

Hi everyone,

Would these two sources about Hot House Music Schools be credible enough to ensure notability?

https://missionlocal.org/event/community-music-center-the-hot-house-music-school-presents-the-screaming-kicks-big-band/

https://static1.squarespace.com/enwiki/static/5409a75ce4b0dc350dc227fa/t/5daecda02ed72b22d6f728cf/1571737057288/Orrery2.pdf PAGE 18/19^

I'm keen to hear your thoughts, --MattHHM (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC) MattHHM (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, This [8] is a routine event listing with a passing mention of "The Hot House Music School" so not a reliable in-depth source. This[9] is an interview with the founder so not independent or reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

why you deleted my edit its wask good not wrong but why just why this website is so lame and boring

 Zhyrnam (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Zhyrnam, Which article? GeraldWL ✉ 16:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Work It (film) user has vandalised the article three times now and been correctly reverted and warned. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Zhyrnam, you kept on changing the text to "roope huolman," a clear WP:VANDALISM. Vandalism is not permitted on Wikipedia. And no-- in your case-- our website is fun and not boring. I'll help you out by giving you Wikipedia policies to read. GeraldWL ✉ 16:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright question

I did not violate the copy right policy of wikipedia. You tube told me for infobox I have to copy the format from others I tried some inforbox column filled accordingly some whow it was view preview not the page in the website suggently Imy system is hanged up after that I cannot open the edit page Utpalbhadra1216 (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Your User name history shows no editing of any article in English Wikipedia. Were you editing while not logged in? Or not English? Would help if you identify by name the article you were editing. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

New Page

Greetings, I just created a new page for Princess Lockerooo. I am not sure if it was submitted because I did not get any notification. Can you tell me if the page was created and how long in might take to go live?DanceWaack (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:DanceWaack/sandbox ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DanceWaack, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not submitted your draft for review: there is a big blue button at the top to do so. (You may have been confused by the "publish changes" button when you created it: you have published it in the sense that anybody in the world can see your draft if they know where to look; but not in the sense of adding it to Wikipedia as an article). But don't submit it yet: you need to add inline citations to the specific place where the information you give was sourced from. See REFB. You also need to tone down the promotional language: it is not Wikipedia's place to talk about people "pioneering" something, or being "unique", or to say what anything "stands for", or that something is somebody's "signature brand". Please see PEACOCK. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@DanceWaack: Because of your username's relation to the subject you are writing about, I am also concerned that you might have a WP:COI, which you may need to disclose (click that link for details). If you are being compensated in any way, to comply with our terms of service, you must disclose that (see WP:PAID). Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@DanceWaack:, your sandbox article must not be a cut-and-paste from copyrighted sources like this page. Wikipedia strictly adheres to copyright law. See: WP:COPY--Quisqualis (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Portal for New Pages

Hello, I am very new to the Wikimedia Foundation and I'm just bad at writing in general. Is there some kind of portal for underdeveloped articles and stubs? I don't really know where to start. If there is not, I am just asking how to find them, not specifically for a portal. Gjjixzho (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Gjjixzho, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm not sure if it has that or not, but Community portal has a lot of suggestions for tasks that editors can do. --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gjjixzho:, it depends on what you are interested in doing. There are many maintenance categories of articles that need help but no one place that matches your description. Stub articles are sorted into a large number of categories so maybe start there and trawl through until you find a category that catches your interest? I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay thank you, ColinFine and Eggishorn, This has been very helpful. Wish me luck! Gjjixzho (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Rules for company logos/photos?

I'm working on a new Wikipedia page for a company. I know the rules about proper information to make up the verbiage and the citations from reputable third-party sources that are required, but I'm not sure about photos. Looking at a competitive company - AGCO - there are multiple images included of the company's products, though no citations seem to be present. Is anything fair game as long as it's not promotional in nature? Is there a limitation to the number of images provided? Otherwise, it seems like logos are always fair game, correct?

Otherwise, when this page is written, is the best place to start the "Sandbox" for proper review before going live?

Thanks for your help!

---

 Jthorp72 (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jthorp72, and welcome to the Teahouse. To answer the second question: my advice would be to use articles for creation, and create the draft in Draft space. Your sandbox is an alternative, but Draft is a newer technology, that I think is preferable.

As for images: the main issue with images is one of copyright. First, note that you cannot live-link to images elsewhere. You can link to them if your use is complies with the rather restricted rules of for external links, but readers will have to click the link to see the images. Images in articles must be uploaded to either Wikipedia or (preferably) Wikimedia Commons. All images uploaded to Commons must be free to use - either in the public domain (by reason of age, or explicit release) or licensed under a licence such as CC-BY-SA. So if you want to upload a photo that you took yourself, and does not show copyright material, then you can just do so with the Upload wizard, and license it on the fly. But for images that are somebody else's copyright, or that show material that is somebody else's copyright, that is often more difficult: the copyright holder will need either to have explicitly licensed the image (as is done for some images on sites like Pinterest, I believe, but not for all by any means), or will need to take the steps described in donating copyright materials - and they need to understand that that will permit anybody to use or alter the image for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute it.

There is an exception to this that may be relevant: because the rules of copyright so limit the available images, English Wikipedia allows non-free images in certain restrictive circumstances: see the non-free content criteria. The case that may be relevant here is that logos are often treated in this way.

Provided copyright rules are complied with, there is no particular limit on the number of images in an article; but if other editors think there are too many, they are free to remove some, just as they can make any other edit to an article. See BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jthorp72: Generally, the number of images is limited by the vertical space of matching text. A typical article has images on the right with text on the left, and looks "ugly" if there's a bunch of empty space on the left because there are too many images. Galleries that span across the page are used sparingly, and generally only for good reason. See especially the links at WP:IMAGE#Policy and guidelines for details. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Questions about requested edits

These are general questions that arose as a result of my attempt to get content added to an article, but they are not specifically about that article. I have a recognized COI and therefore am requesting edits on the article's talk page. My questions are: (1) How do edit requests that are judged by another editor to meet Wikipedia standards for neutrality, notability, and sourcing get transferred to the article? (2) Should I write my requested edits formally formatted, as I would if I was editing the article, or is it better to think of the content that I'm suggesting as pieces to be pulled together more formally in the article by someone else?; (3) I am currently thinking that expanding an article, for which I have a COI, is a collaborative effort where I offer suggestions on the talk page in the format that is directly transferable to the article, get advice from an editor who does not have a COI, revise accordingly, and iterate until we together have produced a body of new content that is worthy of adding to the article. Is this view reasonably consistent with your expectations coming into such interactions? Thanks in advance for any advice that you offer. BiostatSci (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC) BiostatSci (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link to COI: Melanie Stansbury. Onto the questions by BiostatSci:

1. Depends on how the request is phrased. If the request is just a general note, I have to turn that into Wikitext and use citation templates. If it's already formatted in Wikitext, I always "recreate" the sentence so that I can check every word and source.
2. Either way is fine for me, as I rewrite everything anyways. What's more important is that you provide reliable, secondary sources to back up every claim, and that the request is written concisely and clearly. Be sure to make it clear what exactly should be changed, eg. change X to Y, as it saves editors time from digging through the article to find the problem.
3. Yes. Ideally that's how we want edit requests to go, but it hardly happens so smoothly. It helps if you notify users with {{re}} every time you make a reply.

Glancing over the request so far, you've generally been respectful. That's good, so keep that up! Hope this helps. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 21:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BiostatSci, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think these questions are answered on Edit requests, but to summarise: make your request on the talk page of the article, as specifically as you can (eg 'In paragraph starting ... add "...." before "..."') and use the {{edit request}} template, which will add your request to a list that some editors regularly look at. There is no reason why you can't open a more general discussion first if appropriate: just be open about your COI. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

How to make my entry more encyclopedic?

Hi, I am making a collection of Puerto Rican composers and I just submitted my first draft, Draft:Ivan Enrique Rodriguez but it received some comments saying that it appeard to read as a press release. I followed the sructure of Robert Beaser Christopher Rouse (composer) and John Corigliano articles. Is there any way I can make my article better? This is my first article and I want to do it propperly as I would like to contribute with much more. MahlerLover (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

911 conspiracy theories template

{{911ct}} 108.185.107.201 (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. I've added a header, and converted the template you included into a link to that template. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Is there a criteria that covers drafts that duplicate an existing article? I've happened across one that is a copy and paste of a long established article and serves no value whatsoever. – ².O.^Boxing 21:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I am not seeing anything at WP:CSD that applies to this case. RudolfRed (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, if it does not give proper attribution to the Wikipedia article as required by WP:CWW, then it may count as a copyright issue which would be subject to deletion. RudolfRed (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:A10, but if the new copy's title is a reasonable redirect then just redirect it to the original. Meters (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The A series CSD only applies to articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia without attribution is easily solved however late it is discovered, so I don't think any page would be deleted for just that. CSD G12 specifically says that lack of attribution for otherwise non-infringing content doesn't qualify for it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Someone may have intended to use it as a sandbox in which case it should be in their userspace, so it should be discussed with that editor. Abandoned drafts will have to wait for CSD WP:G13, maybe blank it in the meantime. Drafts that are submitted at AFC are declined as duplicates of existing articles. If it's not submitted and it's not been abandoned, I'd leave a note on the draft, its talk page or the talk page of whoever is working on it. There is always WP:MFD if it serves no purpose and has no future. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It began in their sandbox (still there) and they subsequently created a draft. The draft in question is Draft:Manny pacquiao. -- ².O.^Boxing 14:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Editors who won't talk

How can I best address an IP editor who continues to remove sources/change information on an article, when the IP editor won't participate on the article's talk page? The article in question is Barbara Bush. Since 2020-08-10, an IP editor has changed the subject's birthplace multiple times and has ignored pleas to discuss changes on the talk page. I don't want to engage in an edit war, but I want to try to keep the information in the article accurate. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eyer: If it is persistent, you can ask for semi-protection which will prevent IP editing: WP:RFPP. If it is the same IP always, you can leave warnings on the talk page and it the behavior doesnt stop you may be able to have an admin block to partially block it. RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: The /64 has been blocked for a month. Leaving messages on a user talk page will not be useful, as they get assigned a new IP address (within the /64) for each new "session" (as is typical for IPv6). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Need article writing help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Danny_Kabakibo

This is the second article I have written and it has been declined. I do not understand what I have done wrong. I got the names from list of people needing an article, and had no issues finding outside links from places like the New York Times, Newsweek, etc, so I know this isn't an issue with the people I am choosing. I don't understand what it is about how I write that makes it sound wrong? I was told not to list accolades or quotes and to write about the person, which in my second article I was super careful to do, but it was declined very quickly just as my first article had been. Can someone please help me rewrite this so it will be approved? WikiJSPN (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The draft about Kabakibo (which cites neither the NYT nor Newsweek) claims that he was a more or less precocious child and an imaginative youth (which is pleasant, but doesn't confer notability) and that he created, or runs, something called Warin. I was about to point out that this is redlinked; but no, there's an article -- uh-oh, no there isn't: the article is about "a town in the Nordwestmecklenburg district, in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany." If Kabakibo's main claim to notability is his role in Warin, why is there no article about the latter? But OK, there's no law that there must be an article. The description of Warin in the draft comes from one source: this. It's obviously promotional. (Do I need to point out how?) Unsurprisingly, the cited source says: "Information contained on this page is provided by an independent third-party content provider." Most likely it has just recycled some PR puff. But Wikipedia doesn't want promotional articles.

You say "I got the names from list of people needing an article". One way to reduce the risk of promotionalism is to choose people who are long dead. (However, even this is no guarantee of freedom from promotionalism, as some people even post pages glorifying their ancestors.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Almost all of your refs were derived from the same press release (identical or highly similar wording; same photograph!). That does not qualify as reliable secondary sources. David notMD (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, so do I try to fix this or was this not a good person to write about in the first place? Should I try to save it or just scrap it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJSPN (talk • contribs) 04:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, WikiJSPN. The answer to this question is entirely dependent on whether of not Kabakibo meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If he does (there are suitable sources), then we want an article on him, based almost exclusively on those independent sources. if he doesn't, then we won't accept an article on him, however much effort goes into writing it. Like everything on Wikipedia, notability is sometimes open to discussion and judgment; but in many cases it is clear. So if you want to continue with this draft, your first task is finding places where several people who have no connection at all with Kabakibo, and have not been prompted or fed information by him (ie. excluding anything based on interviews or press releases), have chosen to write a significant amount about him (not about his projects, but about him), and been published in reliable sources, with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. If you can find some (at least three, or two if they contain a lot about him), then it's worth carrying on. You want to throw away most of what's in the darft, because Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything the subject of an article says about themselves, only in what independent commentators say about them. --ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@WikiJSPN: If, by "list of people needing an article", you mean WP:RA, keep in mind that anyone can add to those lists – it doesn't mean they are notable. I imagine that it specifically contain subjects that have been deemed WP:TOOSOON and are just waiting around for their time.

As far as finding sources, if the existing improper sources have some identical language in them (from the original PR), a good way of filtering new sources as you look is to make sure those phrases are not present.

For future biographical article prospects, it certainly makes sense to stick with those that have died in recent years, as sources will be easier to find online. Remember to search WP first to make sure there isn't a history of an article on the person being deleted, a draft in progress, or other related material that might affect your article. You might want to look at WP:Wikipedia Library and get access to newspapers.com, which can be quite useful. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Just learned from another comment that those lists are not what I thought, and do not mean these people were already vetted, so that was completely a misunderstanding on my part. I also only recently gained a better understanding on resources. Question: Would the basic search show me drafts, other related articles and such or should I be checking for that somewhere else? WikiJSPN (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN

Templates

How can I add templates on my user page, e.g. Template: Babel? Thy Pyrometer (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Thy Pyrometer, Template:Babel gives examples and instructions of usage. Please go through it, try it, and come back with any questions you might have then. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Usedtobecool,I know what Template: Babel does, but how do I add it? Thy Pyrometer (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thy Pyrometer, by clicking "edit source" at the top of your userpage and typing in {{Babel|en|es-1|fr-1}}, for example. More info is at the template page linked in my previous reply. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Fictitious Wikipedia page - Need Admin Help

I manage the performance duo known as Lime. Our Wikipedia page was updated last year as two imposters took over the page and inserted their likeness and fictitious information. This has evidently been going on for years now as they unsuccessfully attempted to trademark our duo's name which is Lime. Can someone, maybe (Admin Help) an administrator contact me to assist me with resolving this matter once and for all?

Thanks,

Robb Cooper Robbcoop (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robbcoop, what exactly is the issue? Is this a band by the same name causing a conflict? Or has the page been hijacked? Ed talk! 22:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a hijacking. The members listed as on 20 August 2019 are presumably a couple, but now they are replaced by different people. 45.251.33.201 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robbcoop You're better off asking at Talk:Lime (band). If there's vandalism, you can request page protection. I removed some unsourced content since it can't be verified. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This definitely could use admin help. It's a big can of worms that may be a real-world rights dispute, and the history is littered with multiple accounts that may be related IRL. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have protected the page for the time being. I have also left a note on Robbcoop's page, and TheRealLime's page to ask for more details to try to sort this one out. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Colin Higgins -- correction of resting place

Colin Higgins Resting Place.

The page/article name: Colin Higgins

I am the lawyer for the Colin Higgins Trust and Estate. The Trustee has informed me that the article on Colin Higgins in two places incorrectly states: "... was buried in Valhalla Memorial Park Cemetery." The correct information is: "Per the wishes of Colin Higgins, he was cremated and his ashes were scattered by family members around the small islands of Moku Nui and Moko Iki, which are near his former vacation home in Oahu, Hawaii." 98.148.1.143 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec)The addition of the contested info was cited to "Find a Grave", which is not usually accepted as a reliable source, and probably should not have been added in the first place, sorry. I have removed both mentions, on this account. In order to add the information as stated above, WP needs a reliable source. I hope the removal of the incorrect info will be satisfactory. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You should make a formal edit request(click those words for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Colin Higgins, and provide a published reliable source for the information. While I believe what you say, we need a published publicly available source for verification purposes. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You should also read the paid editing policy and make the required declaration. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Moved comments here, from wrong section below

If you are same person who was writing per Colin Higgins, please see my note above. In order to add the correct info, we need a source, such as a newspaper obituary. If you can provide such a source, please add it on the talkpage for the Colin Higgins article. I will be watching, and will format the citation, and add the information. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: was I wrong to remove "contested info", which was based solely on Find A Grave? I have seen such info removed before, but I may have been mistaken, as to the reason for the removal of the info. (I wish to learn, not disagree!) I understand the points you have made above. Personally, I would prefer no information, vs. incorrect information. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Introduction and Request for Support

I now understand the message I received about my first edit. Would someone like to add the reference for me?MarieYolette (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC) MarieYolette (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi MarieYolette. While Higgins's burial place might seem like a nice factoid, it's probably not really a relevant piece encyclopedic information per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. sometimes such information is added to Wikipedia articles because the burial site (i.e. the cemetary) is Wikipedia notable and has an article written about it. Some cemeteries are "famous" for being where famous people are buried; so, some editors think such information should be added to the Wikipedia biographies about these people, which might be the reason the bit about Valhalla Memorial Park Cemetery was added to article about Higgins. Anyway, if you can find a reliable WP:SECONDARY source which supports the claim you're trying to make, then perhaps it can be added to the article. You need to be careful of obituaries though since many are WP:PRIMARY sources (even if they appear in a newspaper) because they are often written and submitted by family or friends of the deceased. It would be better to look for something written by someone unconnected to Higgins to support such a claim. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"If you are same person who was writing per Colin Higgins": As her list of contributions will show, she is not. Tribe of Tiger, Marchjuly: please take a look.. You may also wish to move your Higgins-related comments to the separate thread. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thanks, will move as suggested, and apologize to MarieYolette Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please help me with this?

I want to align this template to the left on my my user page. Can someone please help me? I tried using the align template, but it didn't work. Thanks! I-82-I | TALK 01:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Done! Giraffer (munch) 13:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Disclosures/Transparency

Hi everyone! I am hugely appreciative of folks taking time to answer questions here. There's almost TOO much information about Wikipedia available on the web so it's helpful to have humans filter through the data and provide clear direction.

My question is around disclosure/transparency. I am looking to add and update information on a Wikipedia page for someone I represent and am financially tied to. Because there is a conflict of interest, I don't want to create any issues by making edits myself. In terms of best practices, would you recommend reaching out via talk pages to past editors, disclosing my connection first, and creating a relationship before suggesting any potential updates backed by unbiased links? I don't want to jump the gun and be presumptuous. Any advice would be appreciated! GeletkaPlus (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:PAID and WP:COI, which may help to answer your questions. Thanks for your transparency! Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I need tips.

I have been editing and updating a page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei_Mobile_Services). But every edit or addition I have made has been undone by some moderators saying that the content I input is not neutral. The source of the content is from Huawei itself. It is all factual and true information. Can you please give me tips on how could I edit the page more effectively so it wouldn't be undone? I'd appreciate your help. Thanks. Gian.cabs (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all, please be advised that Wikipedia is mainly interested what people have written in WP:RS about the subject, not what the subjects want to say about themselfes, as humans tend to speak more in favor of things or other people they are closely affilated with, see Conflict of interest. Secondly, asking the same question over mutiple places is considered WP:FORUMSHOPPING and will not help, it yust wastes the time of the people trying to answer you. Thirdly, I have looked at this edit from you, and I must agree that is doesn't conform with WP:NPOV. A couple of notes:

• Since we want to remain neutral, Wikipedia articles should only use the third person to describe events, unless we are directely quting someone
• It contains a bunch of WP:PEACOCK words
• Please dont copy stuff from elsewhere. Texts not written for Wikipedia are in most cases either not under a siutable license or written from a siutable point of view. As copyright violations can get Wikipedia in legal trouble, i had to request that that revision is hidden from public view. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Is TYT a reliable source?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

OP has been blocked for sock puppetry; so, there's no point in leaving this open. See also WP:RSN#RfC TYT for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Is TYT a WP:RS? I couldn't find it in Perennial sources. It is clearly opinionated, so I assume statements of opinion should be attributed. However, from the perspectives of 1. statements of fact, and 2. WP:N (e.g. when it profiles, interviews or mentions someone), is it considered reliable? Stefania0 (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IMDB

Is IMDB a reliable source to add as a citation in contributions? Editingwork8 (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Editingwork8. IMDb pages tend to be user-generated content and thus are not really considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes as explained in WP:Citing IMDB, WP:RS/P#IMDb and WP:RS/IMDB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Resubmit an article by adding more content, to keep it as an independent page

Hello, my article about Draft:National Management Programme (NMP) was rejected with this reason: "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Management Development Institute." I feel that NMP has a distinctive significance in the Education community due to its history and thus, I would want to keep the page independent of the Management Development Institute page. I seek your advice on this: If I add more content to the Draft:National Management Programme (NMP) page (more details) and resubmit, is there a possibility of it getting published? SanyaDuggal (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

SanyaDuggal Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there is more significant coverage in independent reliable sources to be had, you certainly can try. Any history of this program needs to be told by independent sources, not anyone associated with the program. I would note that if you are associated with this program or the Institute that offers it, you should review conflict of interest and paid editing for declarations you could be required to make. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

331dot Thank you very much. All history that I included on the page was from independent sources and sufficiently verified per sentence. Need your suggestion please: how long should the content length be, before I resubmit it for publishing consideration?

Political endorsements

Hi teahouse hosts. After reviewing wp:endorse criteria 3 where it says in the note that "...other language which can be understood as unequivocal endorsement can be discussed on a case-by-case basis (for example, "I am campaigning for Candidate X" or "I am backing Candidate X")" I had one question: can campaigning and/or holding campaign events for the candidate be considered as an endorsement under the note of criteria 3? Thanks Davidmejoradas (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

To admins reading: I'm not an expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe. It depends on you definition of campaigning. Going up on stage and speaking in support or volunteering is probably an endorsment, but tweeting 'I hope user User:Example loses to User:Placeholder in the 2020 ArbCom elections' is not an endorsement, but if they continually stated that they wanted User:Placeholder to win, and that was seen in the media as an endorsement, then you could add it.

Altogether, I would play it on the safe side and if in doubt, don't add the endorsement. The key thing to remember is that endorsement is stronger than just support - if it is an endorsement, it should be easy to tell. Hope this helps, Giraffer (munch) 09:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I was referring to ground campaigning, holding town halls with the candidate and helping the candidate get elected rather than just tweeting or commenting about the support. It was helpful and not sure what an admin thinks about it. Davidmejoradas (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Davidmejoradas, when a guideline is phrased like that, what it is telling you is: "Make your WP:BOLD edit. If it gets reverted, start a discussion on the article talk page." Many if not most of our guidelines are intentionally vague, so as to be flexible. The actual decision making process for article content is WP:CONSENSUS. WP:BRD explains the process. John from Idegon (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Article replacement/overhaul

Is there a way to create a draft copy of an existing page in order to overhaul it completely and give it new structure, then discuss/review it with others before replacing the original? Thanks for your help! Quaenuncabibis (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Quaenincabibis, and welcome to the Teahouse! In that instance, your best option is to create the overhauled page in your sandbox, and then propose the changes on the article's talk page, and show them what you have done in your sandbox. Doing this in a sandbox as opposed to the article ensures that minimal disruption is caused, and there is still a complete, well-written article for people to read while you work on the new version. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 08:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please take into consideration the editing history and length of the existing article. If it has been present for years, and edited by many people, a radical revision may be opposed. I suggest first starting a new section at the Talk page of the article to explain your intentions. If the article has few viewers, a non-current edit history, and little prior discussion on the Talk page, you may not get any comments, but at least you will have established a rationale for your major overhaul. A couple of years ago a relatively new editor proposed to completely rewrite the Grateful Dead article. This was not well received. David notMD (talk)

Hello Giraffer and David notMD! Thanks for the valuable input. I will act acodringly. Best regards, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

From your editing history, it appears that you have been hired by École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne to improved existing articles about faculty members and create new articles about faculty members. I suggest that your User page identify each faculty member article by name, not just the school. Also, given PAID situation, for existing articles, Wikipedia's guidelines are that you do not edit these articles directly. I, for one, am of the opinion that every faculty member of an institution does not warrant an article for doing what academics are supposed to do as part of their career. David notMD (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David notMD! As proposed I will disclose the edited article on my user page and I shall comply with the editing rules. Kind regards Quaenuncabibis (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of corrections

Removal of necessary corrections from a wikipedia page. I edited a wikipedia page by providing totally correct information but it was removed .i want to know why. (2006nishan178713) 2006nishan178713 (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@2006nishan178713: Your edits were removed as some were total copyright violations from the college website (which is wholly unacceptable) and others where not encyclopaedic in their nature, and thus worthless to the project. Those might sound rather strong words, but just because you attend this school does not give you the right to claim ownership of it. One of your deleted edits contained the following text: Author & Editor :User:2006nishan178713 Maintained by  : User:2006nishan178713 This will be updated when we receive more reliable information. Thanks for reading. From your YouTube posts you clearly have an undeclared Conflict of Interest with this subject. Please declare your connection before attempting to make any further edits. (You can probably understand now why we declined your recent request to be added to the Teahouse list of hosts, as you still have a lot to learn about our policies and guidelines.) In future, if someone removes your edits, the sensible thing to do is first read the edit summaries to get your answer and then, if still confused, contact the deleting editor and seek an explanation. Personally, I would have left a formal notice on your talk page warning you never to try that again - I'm sorry that didn't happen in this instance. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, 2006nishan178713 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I take it this is about Techno India Group Public School, and particularly about the recent edits by Diannaa that removed a "vission" and a "mission statement" and many details of infrastructure. The place to discuss this is the article talk page, in this case Talk:Techno India Group Public School. In general, misison statements and the like are not independnet, tend to be promotional, and are usually omitted from articles about organizations. The kind of very detailed infrastructure information listed is often not judged encyclopedic and is omitted from Wikipedia articles, and in this particular case much of it was a copyright violation.

As it happens, Diannaa is particularly experienced in dealing with copyright issues here, and well as being a generally experienced editor. Text may not be copied from other sites into Wikipediua unless it has been released under a compatible free license (or is in the public domain), unless it is short enough to form a proper quotation and then in must be marked, attributed, and cited. (Other content such as images also may not be copied, but the detailed rules are a bit different, and do not apply in this case.)

So if you really think some of this info should be re-added to the article, please explain in detail why on Talk:Techno India Group Public School. Remember that Wikipedia article are based primarily on what others have said about a topic, not what an organization says about itself, and minor details likely to change are usually not included.

Also, you seem to havbe been concentrated on this school. Do you have any connection with it? If you do, you probably have a conflict of interest and should declare that on your user page. If you are an employee or intern at the school, or have been hired or contracted to publicize the school or to write this article, you would be considered a paid editor and you must disclose this as described in the linked policy. This is a mandatory action under the Terms of Use. ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs)

All my contribution being deleted by one particular user. What can I do

Hi, I am a new user and have been contributing. Recently I left a comment in the talk section in calculus. I did not change any edits. Soon after the user 'Deacon Vorbis ' has been following my edits around reverting. Some of them I am in the process of getting the artist to contact directly etc...

However is there anything that can be done. For instance in the wikipedia section ' history of democracy', I made some edits ( as the section has been noticed to have a bias by wikipedia). The person soon reverted it. I have been polite but it's very frustrating. He has used tools ' twinkle etc...

 Imagetoimageless (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Imagetoimageless. Your edits to Talk:Calculus were not removed or changed by Deacon Vorbis, they were merely indented properly to help keep the discussion clear.

Your edits to the article History of democracy were reverted by Deacon Vorbis as tending to forward a particular point of view. If you disagree, they should be discussed at Talk:History of democracy and you would probably be well advised to cite reliable sources that support your edits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Imagetoimageless, in your following edit, you summarized: "Based on original research, the painting was commissioned." To give a heads-up: a wide array of original researches are not permitted on Wikipedia, including your said edit. That's why it's been nominated for deletion. See WP:NOR. GeraldWL ✉ 14:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis That issue is already under discussion at Talk:Madhava of Sangamagrama#Image requirement and Imagetoimageless is participating in that discussion. Wikipedia uses the term Original research in a somewhat serialized sense, just as it does the term Notability, and I am not clear if the kind of research that Imagetoimageless was referring to is the same thing. That can be discussed on the article talk page. In any case, that is of only limited relevance to the edits on quite different pages that Imagetoimageless asked about above, althoguh it may have been what first drew the attention of Deacon Vorbis. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for giving your time for this. Regards to calculus, I meant he noticed I had a different opinion and has gone around targeting all my edits. Regarding the painting- I am aware and is in the process of getting the copyright, attribution validated. However ethically I find it dubious that this person, after first noticing my contribution against his opinion in calculus, has been targeting all my edits. For instance ' History of Democracy' my edits had clear citations, while some edits were just removal of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagetoimageless (talk • contribs) 15:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The user first noticed me, when I had a differing opinion for the talk section of calculus to this user. The person has been targeting all edits since

@Imagetoimageless: Quite often I, too, find one unusual edit, fix it, and then go check all the other edits made by that person -especially if they are a new editor like yourself - in case they have some fundamental misunderstanding about it. I have not looked at yours specifically, but you did the right thing by asking the editor directly and by engaging on the article's talk page. The accusation against Deacon Vorbis or 'targetting' your edits is really a bit silly and quite over the top when you only joined us seven days ago and have thus far only made eight edits in total to actual articles! It would help everyone tremendously if you would also take care to indent your reply each time (by adding one extra colon at the start of your response and then by signing your post so we can tell who is saying what, and when they said it. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.). Nick Moyes (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)  

I second the idea of looking at all of a new editor's edits if a wrong approach to editing appears in an article I watch. At times, there is a consistency in their editing in error, in which case I post a comment on their Talk page. David notMD (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nick Moyes, thanks for the comments. I do agree I am new to Wikipedia and do not have the experience most of you have. However I do point out that the user deacon Vorbis has infact targeted all my edits for reversion. it might be 8, but as a percentage its almost all. It so happened after I left a comment in the section of talk of calculus. I think if you look into this person's edits, The reversion for the entry in 'history of democracy' seems to hold no ground. The only comment this person hasn't reverted is a sentence I added for a scientific piece for kinesin-5. Thank you all, but I do find something ethically wrong in reverting everything by a new editor for no reason ~~~~.)

I recommend you think of each revert as a trigger to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article, inviting Deacon Vorbis to contribute. For one new editor I reverted more than 50 article edits (all fatally flawed reference additions where content had been tagged as "citation needed"), warned the editor several times to learn how to identify valid refs, and finally have them blocked. It wasn't personal. David notMD (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I just want to add, I am a new editor too, and I had my first two articles declined almost immediately that I posted. I too felt targeted and hurt, but try not to take it personally. Ask lots of questions! I know it feels hard to do, but keep editing and being bold. You will make mistakes- but mostly people here are nice and will try and help you. You might even directly ask the user what the issue was that they reverted your edits. I just wanted to reach out there and say you are not alone in feeling this way, being new. Hang in there, keep going! WikiJSPN (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN

Thanks everyone. I do feel better and will take all the points aboard. It's been very constructive and I have learnt a lot :) will continue to be bold, make sure things meet wikipedias guidelines and also add every edit that might be wrong to the talk section. Also starting to intend :) ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagetoimageless (talk • contribs) 08:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

How do I create a wiki page?

 Siennar (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Siennar! See Help:Your first article and/or the shorter version User:Ian.thomson/Howto. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

why did my edit get removed

my edit got removed, in Georgina Bloomberg article, while it is the truth she can become one of the richest women in the world when inheriting all of her father's wealth Anonymous9999911 (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You can see the reason given by the reverting editor in the article's history. If you wish, you can discuss it at Talk:Georgina Bloomberg. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

New to this but confused.

Hi, I tried posting a story regarding an article i read in several national newspapers on the subjects Wiki page but twice now this has been removed. How do i ensure it remains? Thanks, W Whitney1122 (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Whitney1122, welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit on Gillian Keegan is removed because you did not cite the sources. You must cite your claims with reliable, independent secondary sources. Saying that you read it on newspapers-- newspapers are generally reliable-- so you can just copy your edit, and cite the sources you grabbed it from. Just make sure it's not misinformation. GeraldWL 16:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Whitney1122: To understand how to add a statement and then to support it with an inline citation (essential for biographies of living people) please read: Help:Referencing for beginners. (And if you're still confused, try my alternative help page and video here). Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Translating a foreign language article and pasting into English-language Wikipedia

Hi! There's a topic that I feel would be worthy for inclusion in the English language Wikipedia. It's already in the German-language Wikipedia and it's a topic I know well. Am I allowed to translate and then paste the German article into English Wikipedia? Is that permitted or is that a violation of copyright rules or something? I'd add new references and new information as needed, but would prefer not to start from scratch. Please let me know if this is allowed. Kermitchemist (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kermitchemist, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is certainly allowed, as long you as you attribute it: see Translation. I recommend that you still start with it as a draft, and go through the articles for creation process. --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

However, Kermitchemist you should be aware that the standards for notability and article inclusion are different on different language versions of Wikipedia. That an article exists on one version does not mean it will be accepted and retained on a different version. Articles on en.Wikipedia must conform to en standards on sourcing and notability, and may be deleted if they do not conform. Adding additional reliable sources (whether in German, English or any other language) to support statements not so supported in the DE version may well be a good idea. Indeed adding sources may be essential to avoid deletion here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice.Kermitchemist (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Creating a draft question

So I have been an editor on Wikipedia for a decent amount of time. I know how to use the article wizard (for the AFC draft/submission system) and I know how to directly create a new article. Is there an easy way to create a draft without doing the article wizard or creating an article then moving it to a draft? Thanks for help in advance. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Elijahandskip (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: Thanks for wanting to create new articles and use the drafting process. You can create the draft directly in draft space. Just goto Draft:YouNewDraftName and start editing just like you would if you were creating it in mainspace. RudolfRed (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

And when you are ready for review, place {{subst:Submit}} on the draft. RudolfRed (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You can use "Create a new draft" at WP:DRAFT, it adds some basic code like reflist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Guideline on categorization of transcontinental countries in lists in "Foreign relations of" articles

I am looking for a Wikipedia guideline on the following situation: In "Foreign relations of" articles (For example Foreign relations of North Korea or Foreign relations of Syria), often, there are lists for each "continent", which means that Europe and Asia are seperate categories.
Turkey and Russia are two examples for countries that span multiple continents. Often, but not always, one finds Turkey in the "Asia" category in such articles, and Russia in either the "Asia" or "Europe" category. Depending on the viewpoint, you could either argue that the majority of the landmass is located in one continent, for example Asia for Turkey and Russia, Africa for Egypt; or you could argue that the country has historically been located on and is culturally linked to one continent but at some point in time extended into another, for example Asia for Turkey (ex. East Thrace), Europe for Russia (ex. Siberia), Europe for France (ex. French Guiana), Spain (ex. Canary Islands) or the UK (ex. Falklands).
I have tried to find a guideline and looked in the Manual of Style, however, I did not find one.
My question is: Does Wikipedia have a guideline that lists criteria on how to categorize countries in lists that are seperated into "continents"?
I am very thankful for any experienced Wikipedia user who could tell me whether such a guideline exists. 2003:F6:271B:400:DD7E:4C4E:3BD9:D568 (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of any, but you could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

First, since the article is about relations between country x and countries 1 through n, how those countries are grouped is really of secondary importance unless we are trying to show a pattern of relations with countries on continent y, in which case we should use the grouping used by the cite for the pattern claim. Otherwise, pick one of the sources if they specify a grouping, or maybe one of the groupings used in the continent articles and cite it. Having an RS to lean on for the definition of the groups should provide content for a statement in an edit notice and talk page notice regarding the grouping to prevent (or at least shorten) the edit-warring over whether Turkey is Asian or European. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. It certainly is of secondary importance, but in almost all of these "Foreign relations of" articles with enough countries listed, there is a categorization into continents. While I personally would even be fine with the removal of these categories in these articles, instead listing all countries in a single list, I assume these categories are probably made to make the article clearer and more well ordered. The contents of the individual country entries are often pieced together from multiple references which do not necessarily specify countries into continents. I was looking for a guideline to prevent such possible edit warring and to make all "Foreign relations of" Wikipedia articles appear more uniform. Since it doesn't seem to exist and I think that it should exist (because, in my opinion, there should be a uniform standard across Wikipedia -- whether Turkey is classified as "Europe", "Asia", "Eurasian", "Asia and Europe" or something else—interestingly, I just noticed that North and South America are usually grouped together as "Americas" in these articles, so why not for example Europe and Asia as Eurasia, too?), where can I propose it? Would that be the above-mentioned Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories? --2003:F6:271B:400:DD7E:4C4E:3BD9:D568 (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:IXL Learning

I wrote about a parent company, IXL Learning, submitted the draft and I was declined. I was thinking about where to start but I'm just stuck. Can someone review and give me some tips where to start? I believe this is a company that should be in the collection. If abcya has an article, I think the company that owns it and many others should ber here too. }} Le Panini (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Inclusion is based on Notability. One company owning a notable company does not make it notable. See WP:NCORP for guidelines on the notability for a company. In your case IXL Learning must be notable on its own, not just because it owns company abcya. RudolfRed (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

For others, here is the draft Draft:IXL_Learning. The issue may not be notability (I was just clarifying our policy above), but instead the wriing style. RudolfRed (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Can someone check my draft for problems please

Please tell me what I am doing wrong here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cedar_Point_peninsula_(Ohio) 2600:1009:B16D:882D:21B1:E29C:4E9E:BC34 (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@2600:1009:B16D:882D:21B1:E29C:4E9E:BC34: Please go through the comments on the draft, the reviewers have already discussed the problems for declines and rejection in details. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the topic is notable. The subject was once a peninsula, and is now an island connected to the mainland by two causeways. It's now entirely covered by a large amusement park, Cedar Point – I don't know if it's inhabited overnight. The Cedar Point refers to "[t]he Cedar Point peninsula". Maproom (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Twice, you have attempted to remove the history of Declines and those editors' comments. That is contrary to Wikipedia practice, and has been restored. As you wrote, the amusement park, Cedar Point has its own article. You might consider abandoning your draft and adding content to the History section of that article instead. David notMD (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Am I following the correct procedure?

I have created a sandbox and have been working on an article, James Ewing here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mollifiednow/sandbox/James_D._Ewing

Please see the page and (talk) for more details. I'm not sure if I'm following the correct procedure, if I should have notified anyone about my work (?) i would sincerely appreciate it if someone could take a look and advise me if they see anything wrong or if I need to do anything else until I finish. Honestly, I'm not exactly sure of what to do when I'm finished.

Thanks in advance for any help/advice Mollifiednow (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mollifiednow. Your draft looks better than most first time efforts. Some things you might want to look at are MOS:SECTIONCAPS, WP:REFPUNC and WP:PEA, but those are minor formatting/style issues which most likely can be easily cleaned up. The main thing which will determine whether your draft is accepted is going to be Wikipedia:Notability (in particular WP:BIO); at first glance, it looks like that's not going to be much of an issue but that's how the draft will be assessed. When you think you've done all you can do and that the draft is ready for review, you can click the "Submit your draft for review" button near the top of the page. That will send the draft to WP:AFC for review where it will be assessed. An AfC reviewer will assess the draft and decide whether it's OK to upgrade to article status. If the reviewer accepts the draft, they will move it to the article namespace and take care of the "paperwork" that's needed to do that; if the reviewer declines/rejects the draft, they will leave a message at the top of the draft explaining why and offer suggestions as to how to improve it. A draft can be submitted more than once as long as it keeps being improved over the last time it was submitted.

One last suggestion if you do decide to submit the draft for AfC review is that I wouldn't do so with any empty sections (sections with section headings only); either find content to add to the section or remove it completely. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Mollifiednow I rewrote the lead sentence to be more effective. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

How do I Expand Stub Articles?

Hello I am very new here. I have just joined WikiProject:Education and I am looking towards expanding some of their stub articles. However, there are many stubs that are just too short, and I have nothing to work with; nothing to expand from. Can someone give me something to read about this or give me some advice? Thank you. HelloImAStudent (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi HelloImAStudent. I think that "expand" in this sense can also mean to "improve by adding new content2. So, if you find a stub that has very little content and that you think you'd like to try and improve it, then perhaps a good way to think about it would be to treat it as a "new" article. Start from scratch looking for reliable sources that might discuss the subject matter, and then figure out it there's an encyclopedic way to incorporate that content into the article. Perhaps the editor who created the stub just (for whatever reason) created a foundation for others to build upon. You don't have to complete the article per se, but perhaps you can add a little more to that foundation for the next person who comes along to build upon. You can even rebuild the old foundation if you want if you think it would be an improvement.

Now, having said that, you should make sure your improvements are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; if you add lots of content to a stub that is unsourced or otherwise a problem per some Wikipedia policy or guideline, there's a good chance it will end up being removed (either completely or partially) by someone who comes along after you. In addition, there might be a reason that a stub is a stub in that the subject isn't really Wikipedia notable and the stub probably shouldn't have been created in the first place. So, if you start Googling the subject and you're not finding anything that resembles the type of WP:SIGCOV generally needed to establish Wikipedia notability, you might not be able to improve the stub no matter how hard you try and it might need to considered for deletion.

Finally, a good thing to do might be to ask for suggestions at WT:EDUCATION; some WikiProjects keep a list of articles which fall under their scope that need improvement. So, a member of that WikiProject might be able to suggest some stubs which need improving. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay thank you, Marchjuly. This has been very helpful. HelloImAStudent (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

no reliable sources available

Hi, what do I need to do if I cannot find reliable sources like website or published material but I know the information is correct because I am a fan who studied the artists life Newport2020 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Newport2020. Sadly, if there are no published and publicly accessible, independent sources that talk about that person, then you will not be able to demonstrate that they meet our notability guidelines (see WP:NARTIST). This means that you will not be able to create a page about them, sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

But the artist already has a wikipedia page without the reliable sources in a different language. The artist use to have a wikipedia page before as well so how come I cannot create it this time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newport2020 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:Habib Qaderi. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Newport2020: Each language Wikipedia is an independent project, with its own policies, procedures, etc. The existence of an article on another wiki contributes nothing at all to the notability criteria for inclusion on enwiki. If you really cannot find sources that discuss the person, there cannot be an article here about them. Sorry. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Newport2020. Reliable sources don't need to be available online, but they do need to be published and somewhat available as explained in WP:PUBLISH and WP:PUBLISHED. Online availability makes things easier to verify and assess, but it's not a requirement; however, you still will need to cite reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia) and avoid anything that might be seen as WP:OR regardless of whether it's true.

Reliable source don't need to be in English as explained in WP:NOTENG, but they still need to be reliable as defined by Wikipedia. Non-English sources, even reliable sources, can be hard to verify so you might be asked to further clarify the source by others.

Finally, each langauge Wikipedia project has it's own policies and guidelines; so, just because an article exist on one project that doesn't mean it should exist on all projects. English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines apply to English Wikipedia pages; so, if you want to create an article about this person on English Wikipedia, you're going to have establish that this person is notable by English Wikipedia standards or that content about them complies with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Josh Clarke (American Football), Need a 2nd pair of eyes!

Looking for feedback or further editing on this article. I will gladly take a second, third, fourth, or tenth pair of eyes, all suggestions and edits welcome! Thank you in advance! (If you don't think he is notable enough, please do say so, but no need to get angry or be mean about it!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Josh_Clarke_(American_football) WikiJSPN (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN WikiJSPN (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@WikiJSPN: I'm told that some of the possessors of those eyes might object to being called "guys". —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A) not notable, as only a college player with no national awards for football career. B) In looking at your contributions and Talk page history, no one has been angry or mean to you. In fact, deeply experienced editor DGG went to extraordinary lengths to explain the nature of reliable source referencing vis-a-vis one of your Declined drafts. David notMD (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

David notMD I was in no way at all referencing DGG who was very kind to me, and explained several aspects I didn't understand. If you had read our interaction you would see that I sincerely thanked him and asked him other questions seeing that he had significant knowledge. My comment was in relation to having seen rudeness here and experienced it from you. While you didn't say anything directly wrong, it was obvious by your tone and your "uh-oh" and sarcasm left in a previous comment that you clearly don't think I should be here let alone writing articles on anything. I liked wikipedia, I wanted to participate. I didn't do anything wrong out of malice. I am new. I made mistakes. I am trying to correct them. I thought I was supposed to be bold and try, that things could be fixed and I could learn. You are not being kind, you absolutely acted as if my contribution was an outright offense to you. I want to be here and contribute, but my existence seems to really bother you. If I am not welcome here, I will gladly take down what I have written and leave. I didn't mean to offend anyone, I just wanted to help with a resource that I often use and thought was cool. WikiJSPN (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN

Article removed. Sorry for attempting. WikiJSPN (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Why i didn't get any response from wikipedia team

Hi, recently I search about something and i saw that there is many wrong information so i go to the talk page and participate there with articles (reliable sources) but i didn't see any correction and didn't get any response from wikipedia team. Why? Mega flames (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, recently I have search about something and I saw many wrong information so I go the talk page and participate their with articles(reliable sources) but i didn't get any response from wikipedia team. Why? Mega flames (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

First, in this attempt of yours, for example, you provide no evidence, and therefore nobody reading has any reason to believe what you say. People could ask you to provide evidence, but it's at least as likely that they'll ignore you. Secondly, you haven't waited long. Wait a week or so. -- Hoary (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Many wrong information" seems like a bit of overstatement, as you complained about just one - Alha and Udal are not Ahir, according to you. Also there is no "Wikipedia team" it's just 270,000 volunteers, who edits the Wikipedia because they want to, and not because they have to. If they see something they don't want to address, they will not, and not one can tell them to that they have have to address it.

A good way to get a response on Wikipedia is not removing other people's edit request (if you can't respect others, others will not respect you), writing in a more easy to understand way (the question you posted here is pretty difficult to understand, like "so i go to the talk page and participate there with articles (reliable sources) but i didn't see any correction"), and make a request that's credible (like not proposing that your personal knowledge is better than reliable sources). I hope this helps. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

hacking.

how do i become a hacker?!?!?!?!?! Anonymous1357908 Anonymous1357908 (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous1357908 Welcome to Wikipedia. We are here to help regarding Wikipedia editing and usage. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 04:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Anonymous1357908: Just wanted to check if you were asking about Wikipedia Hackathon events? Nick Moyes (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

daKAH

The article title spells it as DaKAH, while the proper spelling is "daKAH". How can I get the title to spell right? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, on the rare occasions where the title should start with a lower-case letter, you can place a tag {{lowercase title}} at the top of the article, and it will display in lower case. Pi (Talk to me!) 06:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: Now that you've got the title sorted, could you find and add some Reliable Sources that show this group meets our notability criteria? I am rather minded to put it forward for a deletion discussion, as I am not convinced at first sight that it merits a page here (see WP:MUSICBIO). Thanks Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The "Sources" need to become references if this is to survive. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks. That's the first thing I checked. And, since there are not too many people interested, I believe WP:BOP is now upon me. Give me a couple of days, if you can, as my internet connect for next three days will remain sketchy at the best. If I fail to establish notability, I would support your WP:AFD. By the way, I am working on this as a tribute to User:Intrigue who last edited in June, 2006. I want to do this because, she/he started the article that I have been busy with for two months now, and I am an emotional fool.

@David notMD: Thanks. I know. I have rescued random articles from deletion before. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Aditya Kabir. By default, I am always in favour of retention rather than deletion, so I, for one, would not want to rush for a deletion discussion if there's a chance something can be improved, as this probably can. Thank you so much. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"bundoora uited" is in a table (114 hits)

Can someone tell me just how to edit "bundoora uited" (114 hits) in various australian soccer teams/player articles if it is in a linked table? Thank you. 2605:E000:1301:4777:9D5E:6901:9210:E465 (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am assuming you are asking about Template:Football Federation Victoria. If you want to edit such a template in an article, you can click on the "V-T-E" part in the upper left corner of the template box. "E" will open the edit window for this template, just like you would edit an article or talkpage. Please make sure to double-check your changes with "Show preview" before you publish them, as changes to such templates affect all articles where they are used. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask here again anytime. GermanJoe (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the answer is I dont know. All I know is that when I do a search there are 114 hits. When I go to edit the article it does not show. So I assume it is in a link. What template I do not know.2605:E000:1301:4777:9D5E:6901:9210:E465 (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I dont follow Aussie football so the who what and where I really could not tell you. Maybe if the editing procedure was not out of the usual I just might know where to go.2605:E000:1301:4777:9D5E:6901:9210:E465 (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling in Template:Football Federation Victoria. Not sure how long it takes our search to update, but this shows no hits on that mis-spelling in articles that do not use that NavBox. Thanks for catching it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for Oscar Martinez (The Office) page

Can this content be replaced with the first two paragraphs ? I've deleted the sentences mentioning GLAAD's view on 'The Office' and references associated with them. Please review this:

"Oscar Martinez is a fictional character from the US mockumentary-style television series The Office played by Cuban-American actor Oscar Nunez. Martinez is seen working as an accountant at the Scranton, Pennsylvania, in Dunder Mifflin’s office of a paper distribution company."

The character was implied to be gay in the second-season episode "The Secret", when Dwight catches him faking sickness to spend the day with his boyfriend (Dwight remains oblivious to this fakeness as he was obsessed with proving that Oscar was not ill). In earlier episodes, many co-workers erroneously attribute to him various Mexican stereotypes (e.g. being involved in drug cartels) but after his ousting, his stereotypes are more concentrated on his being gay, particularly by Michael, which may explain their conflicted relationship. Editingwork8 (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Editingwork8: The place to discuss it would be at the talk page of the article, Talk:The Office (U.S. TV series). I fixed your formatting above – starting a line with a space causes it to render in a non-proportional font, which can be undesirable. Also note there is a grammatical error in the last sentence ("... at the Scranton ..."). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@[AlanM1 (talk)]Thank you for guiding and correcting my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingwork8 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

How i know that

How would i know that the source i provide are enough for wikipedia confirmation to edit the article Mega flames (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Check that your sources are:

• From books (other than self-published books, and books from vanity publishers)
• From academic journals (other than those from predatory publishers)
• From magazines, newspapers, or news websites, other than those we are warned away from in the table within Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Check that your sources are not:

• From blogs
• From "social media"
• From the people, organizations, etc that you're writing about.

For more, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Mega flames, good question, and it's not always that easy to "know", because context matters. The question is always "Is this source good for this content?" There is a noticeboard, WP:RSN, for that. Few sources fits all. If you think an edit is reasonable, do it, and be prepared to talk if other people disagree (WP:BRD).

Blogs and social media are very seldom useful as sources. Aim for reliably published books, newspapers/sites, magazines and the like. Is the topic history? Aim for historybooks. Medicine or living people? High quality is demanded. Some sources have been discussed many times, there's a list of them at WP:RSP, that may get you an idea on what is generally accepted.

And then, having a source is not always enough, see for example WP:BALANCE an WP:PROPORTION. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

How much time is taken to edit a article

Hi,I recently provide reliable sources to edit a article so how much time it take to edit Mega flames (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I assume you are reffereing to your edit request on Talk:Banaphar. Generally, edit requests can take from a few minutes to about two weeks, as with every review process on Wikipedia. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

My edit has been undone by ClueBot NG

Please suggest how the editing done by me was wrong that the bot reverted my edit. Please check the original content and the edited first two paragraphs as given below and decide which one to keep. I made an edit recently on Oscar Martinez (The Office) page as follows:

"Oscar Martinez is a fictional character from the US mockumentary-style television series The Office played by Cuban-American actor Oscar Nunez. Martinez is seen working as an accountant at the Scranton, Pennsylvania, in Dunder Mifflin’s office of a paper distribution company."

The character was implied to be gay in the second-season episode "The Secret", when Dwight catches him faking sickness to spend the day with his boyfriend (Dwight remains oblivious to this fakeness as he was obsessed with proving that Oscar was not ill). In earlier episodes, many co-workers erroneously attribute to him various Mexican stereotypes (e.g. being involved in drug cartels) but after his ousting, his stereotypes are more concentrated on his being gay, particularly by Michael, which may explain their conflicted relationship. Editingwork8 (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You removed referenced content and replaced it with unreferenced content. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I sense this was part of fancruft deletion, so might well have been quite justified, and certainly not a bad faith edit, even if the automated tool sensed it as such. (Will add some more thoughts later when im back on my PC.) Nick Moyes (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the appropriate way to cite an ACM article?

What is the appropriate way to cite an article available in the ACM digital library? For example the article at https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/75277.75283 JorKadeen (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

JorKadeenThis place is onlyforWikipedia doubts. What is your question regarding Wikipedia. Is it how to cite in Wikipedia?Chemmy bear Discuss in more detail?

Hi, @JorKadeen: You have to select Cite>Journal and in the dialog box you have to paste the DOI in DOI section, click on the magnifying glass icon. It will auto fill all the details. In this case you have to just paste https://doi.org/10.1145/75277.75283 . Thanks Rocky 734 (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a host that would be willing to monitor a rewrite?

Hello

I'm trying to learn my craft as a Wikipedian. As part of this I'm undertaking a rewrite of the Door handle page, which needed some love. I've posted my rewrite aims on the Door handle talk page. This is certain to be a piecemeal project for me. So far I've added a History section and started rearranging some other material. Is there a host/editor that would be willing to keep an occasional eye on what I am doing? I've done some editing elsewhere and added a page on Pistol duelling but this is the largest project I've attempted so far.

I'm not looking for hand-holding. Just the knowledge that an experienced editor is aware of what I'm doing. Also, if the Pistol duelling page flags any "don'ts" that I'm doing, it would be good to know now so I don't replicate them on the Door handle page or any others.

Thank you all as always for your constructive help. Universal Kakistocrat (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Universal Kakistocrat, added it in my watchlist. I'll see what I can do too. GeraldWL 12:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You might reach out to User talk:Larry Hockett, as he has been an editing presence at the article for a while, and has reverted a few of your edits. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gerald Waldo Luis. I appreciate it. Thank you too for the good suggestion David notMD. I had a conversation about this with Larry Hockett. His interest looks to be infection control. He was very helpful on the importance of sources in that section. The history, for example, wasn't his interest when I asked. So I'm especially grateful to Gerald Waldo Luis for picking this up.Universal Kakistocrat (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

An editor with POV and deletion issues

Hi. Tried to resolve the issues at Karmapa Controversy without calling in the administrators. There's an editor that won't build consensus, hasn't responded to attempts to build consensus, and meanwhile has rewritten the article with heavy POV while deleting, it appears, almost all previous work. I re-edited the opening after efforts at communicating didn't work. The editor responded with a threat of a block... Worse, I just scanned the entire article and it's full of POV, unbalanced, and is an editing mess. Yes, the editor writes well so their work is deceptively coherent; and they cite books as RS, which are typically one sided ( they agree) and unverifiable as RS. I've asked them to stop and build consensus before continuing, but they apparently refuse. I think a block is past due - so they understand the situation. Is there another option? Advise? Thanks! Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot, from what I can observe this began about a month ago. Why didn’t you report this earlier? It’s easier to curtail this at the initial stage. I have however left a warning on their talk page & would be also monitoring their activities. I am not so sure but I may have to undo most of their edits on that article & take it to back to how it was on the 24th of July which was(I stand to be corrected) the most neutral version.Celestina007 13:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Please review my article

I know this isn't the right place but please someone should review this article for me, if it's good to be on Wikipedia. If yes, I would like to go ahead and create the other ones. I've done the same at WP:Football Josedimaria237 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Josedimaria237 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Josedimaria237, Hello, your article is on a queue & would be reviewed accordingly at the appropriate time. Celestina007 13:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Article Removal

How do I remove an article that I created that has already been approved? WikiJSPN (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)WikiJSPN WikiJSPN (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing wikipedia pages

What are the steps or activities that happen once I make edits to a wikipedia page (improbing grammar or restructuring sentences etc.) ? Could someone explain the lifecycle of a wikipedia page across its journey of edits that people like me make to it?Shokap (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Shokap (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)